facebook linkedin twitter

ABA Asks Supreme Court to Confirm Standard for Effective Counsel in Capital Cases

February 28, 2020 by Dan McCue
A police officer stands guard on the steps of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, June 15, 2017. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images/TNS)

The American Bar Association filed an amicus brief Thursday asking the Supreme Court to hear the case of an Arkansas man challenging the way a lower court assessed whether he received effective counsel during the punishment phase of his death penalty trial.

Timothy Wayne Kemp was convicted in Arkansas of four counts of murder and sentenced to death.

At issue is whether his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence related to Kemp’s childhood abuse, fetal-alcohol exposure and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Both the trial court and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals deemed the investigation of Kemp’s background as sufficient, although both concluded a more complete investigation could have prevented a death sentence from being imposed.

In its brief the ABA cited its own guidelines for the appointment of counsel in death penalty cases, arguing the trial court did not meaningfully apply the “prevailing professional norms” standard that governs this case.

The brief also points to the 1984 Supreme Court decision in Strickland v. Washington, in which the justices held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel also carried with it a means to assess whether a defense attorney was objectively deficient, and whether there was a reasonable probability that a competent attorney would have led to a different outcome.

The ABA brief said that in recent years courts have “seized on language” in a 2009 Supreme Court decision to avoid conducting a legal and factual analysis of whether counsel’s representation fell short of an objective standard of reasonableness in light of “prevailing professional norms.”

The effect in the Kemp case, the ABA brief argued, was that the lower courts upheld the death sentence even though his counsel’s failure to hire a mitigation investigator or perform a more robust background investigation “fell below relevant benchmarks for reasonable counsel performance.”

“Had this attorney fulfilled his duty to conduct a thorough investigation of Kemp’s background consistent with the Sixth Amendment and prevailing professional norms, the lawyer would have discovered evidence that would have likely saved Kemp from a sentence of death,” the brief said.The case is Timothy Wayne Kemp v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Department of Corrections.

Supreme Court

October 15, 2021
by Dan McCue
Supreme Court Commission Finds Crisis In Senate Confirmation Process

WASHINGTON -- A presidential panel charged with considering the pros and cons of altering the size and function of the... Read More

WASHINGTON -- A presidential panel charged with considering the pros and cons of altering the size and function of the U.S. Supreme Court is instead calling out the Senate confirmation process for justices. In draft documents released ahead of a public meeting on Friday, the Presidential... Read More

October 14, 2021
by Dan McCue
Justices Consider Whether to Reinstate Marathon Bomber’s Death Sentence

WASHINGTON -- On April 15, 2013, two Chechen-American brothers planted a pair of homemade pressure cooker bombs near the finish... Read More

WASHINGTON -- On April 15, 2013, two Chechen-American brothers planted a pair of homemade pressure cooker bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. At approximately 2:49 p.m. that Monday afternoon, the bombs detonated 14 seconds apart, killing three and injuring 264 others. At least... Read More

October 4, 2021
by Dan McCue
Supreme Court Holds DC Not Entitled to Vote in Congress

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed a lower court ruling that denied District of Columbia residents a voting... Read More

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed a lower court ruling that denied District of Columbia residents a voting member in the House of Representatives. As is their custom, the justices did not explain the rationale behind their summary disposition of the case, though they... Read More

What's Old is New Again: Justices Back at Court for New Term

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is beginning a momentous new term with a return to familiar surroundings, the mahogany... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is beginning a momentous new term with a return to familiar surroundings, the mahogany and marble courtroom that the justices abandoned more than 18 months ago because of the coronavirus pandemic. Abortion, guns and religion all are on the agenda... Read More

Abortion, Guns, Religion Top a Big Supreme Court Term

WASHINGTON (AP) — The future of abortion rights is in the hands of a conservative Supreme Court that is beginning... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — The future of abortion rights is in the hands of a conservative Supreme Court that is beginning a new term Monday that also includes major cases on gun rights and religion. The court's credibility with the public also could be on the line,... Read More

A 'Dangerous Cabal'? Alito Says High Court is No Such Thing

WASHINGTON (AP) - Justice Samuel Alito pushed back Thursday against criticism, including some from colleagues, that recent Supreme Court actions... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) - Justice Samuel Alito pushed back Thursday against criticism, including some from colleagues, that recent Supreme Court actions in major cases have been done hastily and in the shadows. "A dangerous cabal" improperly deciding important matters — hardly, he said. Alito, in remarks at... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top